Autoblog readers come clean with their own controversial automotive beliefs

You Shared Your Unpopular Opinions And We Respond

Last week, the editors here at Autoblog sounded off with their unpopular automotive opinions, voicing the controversial sentiments for which we often catch flak from other enthusiasts upon expression. Along with our own, we invited the Autoblog faithful to share their unpopular opinions. We were thrilled to see how many of you shared your own opinions – nearly 400 of you weighed in with thoughts of your own at last count.

The comments were so good, in fact, that we have gathered a bunch of the most interesting ones and are sharing them here (occasionally corrected for grammar, style, etc.), giving their authors their just reward for taking the time and effort to write out their thoughts. Scroll below to see some more unpopular opinions as well as our reaction to your thoughts. Perhaps you'll find you aren't so alone in thinking the Chrysler PT Cruiser wasn't all bad, or that the Nissan GT-R is overrated. Perhaps.

Chrysler PT Cruiser Love Admitted

I like the way first-gen PT Cruisers look. I wish they were built better and didn't have a stupid name.

– P.Z. Dawkins

Despite its popularity when new, the PT Cruiser has emerged as one of recent history's most universally loathed cars, often mentioned in the same breath as the Pontiac Aztek and Hummer H2. The greatest focus of people's ire is generally on the car's aesthetics, which was a combination of retro design, compact size and, far too often, aftermarket fake wood or flame decals.

P.Z. Dawkins, it's a bold move coming out and professing your love for Chrysler's throwback econobox like that – we appreciate your chutzpah. The Autoblog staff is famously split on how it feels about the PT – some deride its looks and the way it drives, while others find merit in its space efficiency, low price and very different looks.

Here's a fun fact: The PT Cruiser was on Car and Driver magazine's Ten Best New Cars list in 2001.

Rear-Wheel Drive Is Overhyped

RWD isn't all that. It has its place, but the larger the car (trucks are a different story), the less it matters, and that pretty much leaves out full-size luxury sedans and probably most mid-size one as well. These vehicles by definition are designed to be comfortable for both driver and passenger and (action movies notwithstanding) are simply are not called upon or particularly adept at being driven in a manner where the advantages of rear-wheel drive come to play.

– Jonathan C. Baker

Indeed, technology advances have made front-wheel-drive, fullsize cars less of an understeering, nose-heavy mess than they used to be – the advent of things like traction control, torque vectoring and downsized, lighter engines have upped their handling quotients tremendously. In that, you've got a point, Jonathan.

But for our money, there's still something to be said for rear-wheel drive. That's true even when you aren't driving a car very hard, with benefits that include better steering feel, reduced torque steer, superior weight distribution and the improved turning circle generally offered by a north-south engine orientation (the latter being particularly important in a full-size car). It's also a heck of a lot easier to get gobs of horsepower to the ground, not to mention more fun.

The Bugatti Veyron Is Among The World's Ugliest Cars

One of mine that always gets flamed is when I mention the Veyron being just about the ugliest car for sale. Technology will only get you so far. Maybe it looks better at 2am after a few dozen beers and it's time to pair up?

– johnb

This is certainly controversial in the sense that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We're pretty sure we wouldn't call the Bugatti the ugliest car on the market, but we're not sure how many of us would call it pretty, either, and it's rather dated at this point. A hybrid successor to the Veyron is rumored to be in the works, but it's far too early to say if looks are going to be a dramatic departure from what we're used to seeing.

Let's be real here, though. If it's 2:00 AM and you're rolling up in this car, neither a dozen beers nor the car's looks are going to be necessary to help you find a companion for the evening. All you need is that badge, baby.

I Heart Continuously Variable Transmissions

There's been something I need to say and I know I'm going to get downvoted for this. Oh well, I'm just going to say it. I own a 2014 Subaru Outback 2.5i with a CVT and I like the CVT in it. I actually like the way a CVT drives and I love how fuel-efficient my Outback is. Now, I own a 1970 Datsun 240Z to keep me sane with manuals. But for me, I like the CVT in my Subaru.

– MN_Mavrik

Don't worry MN_Mavrik. There are at least a few of us on staff that don't hate the best modern CVTs. No, they're clearly not as engaging as a traditional slushbox – let alone a manual – but man, it's hard to argue with their real-world fuel efficiency.

Subaru is one automaker that seems to have nailed the CVT. We thought they were losing their minds over there when we heard one was going in the WRX, but, upon driving it, we were pleasantly surprised at how much of an improvement it is over the old four-speed automatic. Still, though, our choice is the manual.

I Hate Godzilla

I hate the R35 GT-R. I will admit the car is an absolute monster, but it just doesn't do it for me. I've been a fan of the Skyline GT-R since they debuted, but the R35 was a turnoff. The car is God awful ugly and it is more a computer than anything else. I prefer a more pure drivers car without the computers to save your butt when you screw up. The car makes a novice driver look great and that bothers me. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I like the days where you had to have skill to drive a car fast and near its limits, the kind of car that you need balls the size of grapefruit to push hard (i.e. older Vipers).

– Turbo_S60

Godzilla haters tend to be few and far between, so we applaud you for your bravery in coming clean with your belief, Turbo_S60. We see your point: you need that lingering fear of death while behind the wheel to get a true sports car experience.

We kid.

It's quite clear that the current GT-R's styling isn't for everyone, nor is the way it realizes its spectacular performance. It's true that it's an easier car to drive quickly than nearly everything else on the market thanks to its prodigious computing power, so we can see why its ability to flatter greenhorns bothers you. Even so, most of the Autoblog staff finds the GT-R's unique brand of performance thrilling just the same.

Cars Are Too Cheap To Buy And Run

Here's my controversial automotive belief: cars are too cheap to purchase, own and operate. There are too many cars on the road as a result. Cars should be subject to expensive, rigorous, yearly inspections before they can be licensed. I'm sick of following an Expedition with a collapsed driver-side rear suspension in the fast lane. The cost of the inspection must go to maintaining surface streets. Driver's tests should be rigorous and, let's say, biennial. The elderly will have to arrange other transportation. That's it.

– trill.trill

Wow, trill.trill, you've given us a lot of ground to cover on this one. Kudos for your honesty in bringing up what are some very polarizing viewpoints. Though there are a lot of issues brought up in this statement, the general point you seem to be making is that we've become a culture that treats driving and car ownership as a right, not as a responsibility and privilege. We certainly are on board with that. We're also in favor of more rigorous driver training and stricter licensure standards.

Diehard Car Nut Who Can't Wait For Autonomous Vehicles

I'm a huge car fan. I love manual transmissions, manual steering and I love watching F1, LeMans and Tudor United. I drive a Lotus Exige that I often track, as well as a Mercedes wagon. But I CANNOT WAIT for FULLY AUTONOMOUS CARS. That's my dark secret. I hate traffic and, living in congested area, I think most drivers stink and cause the traffic. Humans driving cars will be like the horse – used on the weekends and driven on track. I've come clean.

– Shahul X

This is a really interesting comment, Shahul_X. We, too, love driving almost more than life itself, but if autonomous cars deliver on the safety and efficiency their designers are promising, it's going to be difficult argue against their usage. It's a true auto enthusiast conundrum that we may have to come to terms with sooner than later. Can we really debate saving 30,000 lives per year because not going the self-driving route is more fun?

Our real fear is that eventually, as they become more and more common, it will become increasingly hard to find places where it's legal to drive non-autonomous cars. There's probably a screenplay for an underground racing movie set in a Dystopian future in there somewhere, but it's not a world we're eager to live in.

Toyota's Corolla S Is 'The Best-Looking Small Car'

The new Corolla S is probably the best-looking small car on the market. No, I won't ever test drive one and the fender gap is ridiculous, but so many automakers are trying to be overly swoopy and the Corolla strikes a balance between hard lines and gentle curves. It is conservative in a good way. People tout up the Mazda3 for its design for good reason, but its concept car aspirations can't be applied to a vehicle with short profit margins and shouldn't need to. Being conservative doesn't equate to boring, and just because something has a Toyota badge doesn't mean it is instantly a stupid and ugly car - in fact they make a few decent-looking vehicles.

– mazeroni

A certain Autoblogger by the name of Steven J. Ewing would take exception to your view of the Corolla. Toyota gets a lot of hate for its designs – the brand certainly has more than its share of vanilla offerings – but it's easy to point to sales numbers in order to trump almost all criticism. Of course having a Toyota badge doesn't mean a car is stupid or ugly – more often than not, it's exactly the opposite. That said, we're going to have to agree to disagree on the whole Corolla S as "best-looking small car thing," okay?

Using Turbos To Improve MPG Is Stupid

Using turbochargers to improve fuel economy is stupid. They're very expensive and only improve economy when they're off boost. Variable valve timing works in a similar way, coming with better fuel economy and less power when you don't need it, but variable cams don't cost $2,000+. Also, as Ford is finding out, few people drive efficiently enough to actually keep those turbos off boost, which leads to far worse fuel economy.

– Bandit5317

Considering the dramatic improvements that companies like Mazda have made in fuel efficiency without using turbochargers, there are certainly other ways to realize improvements in the almighty mpg, Bandit5317. A controversial statement nonetheless, however, considering the big bets placed on them from automakers worldwide.

Our take? We've had real trouble getting advertised fuel economy ratings from many of these new-generation downsized turbo gasoline engines – there seems to be something in the EPA test cycle that favors them. Still, we've driven small turbos that do get their promised figures, and it's hard to argue with their impressive torque curves for improving performance metrics other than fuel economy.

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

Autoblog; I think we all enjoyed your editorial and would like to see such things more often, from time to time. I, myself, really like the writers and editors participating in the chat and in returning commentary in posts like this. Please keep up the intriguing and participation provoking ideas.

I think too many people forget that the vast majority of drivers just use their car to get where they need to go. They want it to be comfortable and easy, and have no idea what "driver engagement" or fun behind the wheel is. They want space, smooth ride, and confident (not necessarily quick) acceleration. Commutative steering, flat corning, a crisp manual transmission, or RWD mean absolutely nothing. Most of the people I know have no idea what makes a car sporty or even if their car is FWD or RWD

I look at it as a muscle car that grew up. It got rid of the often embarrassing comic book graphics and overdone boy racer stripes. It went to finishing school and doesn't need to scream "look at me" on every corner. Look at one of the big 4 door Chargers painted blazing yellow with all the graphics and cartoon bee. I'd be embarrassed to own that car.

Agreed. It was a little boring to look at, a bit too heavy, and certain things like the bushings needed to be immediately addressed with aftermarket parts. But the bones of the car were great, and now that they're dirt cheap, they're actually a great buy.

Thanks for the support Autoblog! I know that enthusiasts love to bash CVT because of how it "feels". I guess I like knowing that the engine is exactly where it should be rather than a transmission hunting through 8 or 9 gears to find right where it should be. Keep up these fun editorials!

I agree on the CVT. I think it's a brilliant idea, and am getting used to the smooth operation of our new Pathfinder. My car is a manual Accord, so I dig full control as much as the next guy. But I reckon, if I'm driving an automatic, might as well give me "all the gears".

To expand a bit, watching revs drop as I accelerate is weird. So is the lack of the familiar sensation of gear changes. But there's no doubt it gets up to speed plenty quick enough. It's deceiving to zoom all the way up to freeway speed without feeling any upshift. Probably more credit to the engine than the transmission there, but I just think CVT is a cool invention.

you are so right about the decieving part, car mag has put several nissan car with CVT against traditional auto and the nissan car match or beat them in 0-60 and also 45-65 MPH passing test. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1408_the_big_test_2014_three_row_crossovers/viewall.html

"Using turbochargers to improve fuel economy is stupid. They're very expensive and only improve economy when they're off boost. Variable valve timing works in a similar way, coming with better fuel economy and less power when you don't need it, but variable cams don't cost $2,000+. Also, as Ford is finding out, few people drive efficiently enough to actually keep those turbos off boost, which leads to far worse fuel economy." Uh, what? the problem with this statement is that variable valve timing has been done, it's there on practically all overhead cam engines and many pushrod engines. the benefits of VVT have already been gained. downsizing + turbo is the next step.

I agree with MN Mavrik. I added a 2014 Outback to my 2 Bimmers and 1 Infiniti, and am not unhappy I opted for the CVT. Best is the freeway smoothness, as rpms inch up or down with no shifting of gears. Occasional dislike is attempting to pass while going up the mountain to Tahoe--all it takes, like a manual, is revs to get the job done, but when I'm not shifting it just sounds weird.